DOCSLIB.ORG

Grand River Assessment Scott K

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grand River Assessment Scott K ATUR F N AL O R T E N S E O U M R T C R E A STATE OF MICHIGAN S P E DNR D MI N DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CHIGA FR20 June 2017 Grand River Assessment Scott K. Hanshue and Amy H. Harrington www.michigan.gov/dnr/ FISHERIES DIVISION FISHERIES REPORT 20 Suggested Citation Format Hanshue, S. K., and A. H. Harrington. 2017. Grand River assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Report 20, Lansing. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) MISSION STATEMENT “The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state’s natural and cultural resources for current and future generations.” NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION (NRC) STATEMENT The Natural Resources Commission, as the governing body for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, provides a strategic framework for the DNR to effectively manage your resources. The NRC holds monthly, public meetings throughout Michigan, working closely with its constituencies in establishing and improving natural resources management policy. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NON DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT 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 (MI PA 453 and MI PA 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: HUMAN RESOURCES or MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS or OFFICE FOR DIVERSITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CADILLAC PLACE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PO BOX 30028 3054 W. GRAND BLVD., SUITE 3-600 4040 NORTH FAIRFAX DRIVE LANSING MI 48909-7528 DETROIT MI 48202 ARLINGTON VA 22203 For information or assistance on this publication, contact: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ATUR F N AL O R Fisheries Division T E N S E O PO BOX 30446 U M R T C LANSING, MI 48909 R E A S P 517-373-1280 E DNR D TTY/TDD: 711 (Michigan Relay Center) M ICHIGAN This information is available in alternative formats. Grand River Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... vii LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................. x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................ xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... xii INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 RIVER ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 4 Geography .........................................................................................................................4 Headwaters .................................................................................................................4 Upper River Segment ..................................................................................................4 Middle River Segment ................................................................................................. 5 Lower River Segment ..................................................................................................5 Mouth ..........................................................................................................................5 History ...............................................................................................................................6 Geology ...........................................................................................................................10 Hydrology .........................................................................................................................11 Climate .........................................................................................................................11 Headwaters ............................................................................................................... 12 Upper River Segment ................................................................................................ 12 Middle River Segment ............................................................................................... 12 Lower River Segment ................................................................................................ 12 Mouth ........................................................................................................................ 13 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 13 Annual Stream Flows .................................................................................................... 13 Seasonal Water Flow .................................................................................................... 14 Headwaters and Upper River Segment ..................................................................... 16 Middle River Segment ............................................................................................... 16 Lower River Segment ................................................................................................ 17 Mouth ........................................................................................................................18 Daily Water Flow ........................................................................................................... 18 Flooding and Floodplains .............................................................................................. 19 Water Use .....................................................................................................................21 Soils and Land Use .......................................................................................................... 22 Soils ..............................................................................................................................22 Land use and Land cover ............................................................................................. 23 Headwaters ............................................................................................................... 24 Upper River Segment ................................................................................................ 24 Middle River Segment ............................................................................................... 24 Lower River Segment ................................................................................................ 25 Mouth ........................................................................................................................ 25 Bridges, Culverts and Other Stream Crossings ............................................................. 26 Channel Morphology ........................................................................................................ 27 Gradient ........................................................................................................................ 28 Specific Power .............................................................................................................. 29 i Grand River Assessment Channel Cross Section ................................................................................................. 29 Headwaters ............................................................................................................... 30 Upper River Segment ................................................................................................ 30 Middle River Segment ............................................................................................... 31 Lower ........................................................................................................................ 32 Mouth ........................................................................................................................ 33 Dams and Barriers ........................................................................................................... 33 Headwaters ............................................................................................................... 35 Upper River Segment ................................................................................................ 36 Middle River Segment ............................................................................................... 37 Lower River Segment ................................................................................................ 38 Mouth ........................................................................................................................ 41 Water Quality ................................................................................................................... 41 Overview .....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Physical Limnology of Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron
    PHYSICAL LIMNOLOGY OF SAGINAW BAY, LAKE HURON ALFRED M. BEETON U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory Ann Arbor, Michigan STANFORD H. SMITH U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory Ann Arbor, Michigan and FRANK H. HOOPER Institute for Fisheries Research Michigan Department of Conservation Ann Arbor, Michigan GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION 1451 GREEN ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN SEPTEMBER, 1967 PHYSICAL LIMNOLOGY OF SAGINAW BAY, LAKE HURON1 Alfred M. Beeton, 2 Stanford H. Smith, and Frank F. Hooper3 ABSTRACT Water temperature and the distribution of various chemicals measured during surveys from June 7 to October 30, 1956, reflect a highly variable and rapidly changing circulation in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron. The circula- tion is influenced strongly by local winds and by the stronger circulation of Lake Huron which frequently causes injections of lake water to the inner extremity of the bay. The circulation patterns determined at six times during 1956 reflect the general characteristics of a marine estuary of the northern hemisphere. The prevailing circulation was counterclockwise; the higher concentrations of solutes from the Saginaw River tended to flow and enter Lake Huron along the south shore; water from Lake Huron entered the northeast section of the bay and had a dominant influence on the water along the north shore of the bay. The concentrations of major ions varied little with depth, but a decrease from the inner bay toward Lake Huron reflected the dilution of Saginaw River water as it moved out of the bay. Concentrations in the outer bay were not much greater than in Lake Huronproper.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 03089500 Mill Creek Near Berlin Center, Ohio 19.13 40.9638 80.9476 10.86 9.13 0.6880 58.17 0.77 0.41 2.10 03092000 Kale C
    Table 2-1. Basin characteristics determined for selected streamgages in Ohio and adjacent States. [Characteristics listed in this table are described in detail in the text portion of appendix 2; column headings used in this table are shown in parentheses adjacent to the bolded long variable names] Station number Station name DASS Latc Longc SL10-85 LFPath SVI Agric Imperv OpenWater W 03089500 Mill Creek near Berlin Center, Ohio 19.13 40.9638 80.9476 10.86 9.13 0.6880 58.17 0.77 0.41 2.10 03092000 Kale Creek near Pricetown, Ohio 21.68 41.0908 81.0409 14.09 12.88 0.8076 40.46 1.08 0.48 2.31 03092090 West Branch Mahoning River near Ravenna, Ohio 21.81 41.2084 81.1983 20.23 11.19 0.5068 38.65 2.35 1.01 2.51 03102950 Pymatuning Creek at Kinsman, Ohio 96.62 41.4985 80.6401 5.46 21.10 0.6267 52.26 0.82 1.18 5.60 03109500 Little Beaver Creek near East Liverpool, Ohio 495.57 40.8103 80.6732 7.89 55.27 0.4812 38.05 1.98 0.79 1.41 03110000 Yellow Creek near Hammondsville, Ohio 147.22 40.5091 80.8855 9.37 33.62 0.5439 19.84 0.34 0.33 0.36 03111500 Short Creek near Dillonvale, Ohio 122.95 40.2454 80.8859 15.25 27.26 0.3795 30.19 1.08 0.93 1.16 03111548 Wheeling Creek below Blaine, Ohio 97.60 40.1274 80.9477 13.43 27.46 0.3280 40.92 0.97 0.56 0.64 03114000 Captina Creek at Armstrongs Mills, Ohio 133.69 39.9307 81.0696 13.56 26.99 0.6797 32.76 0.54 0.64 0.66 03115400 Little Muskingum River at Bloomfield, Ohio 209.94 39.6699 81.1370 5.50 44.84 0.7516 10.00 0.25 0.12 0.12 03115500 Little Muskingum River at Fay, Ohio 258.25 39.6406 81.1531 4.32 60.10 0.7834
    [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]
  • Ohiocontrolled Hunting
    CONTROLLED HUNTING OHIO OPPORTUNITIES 2020-2021 Application period JULY 1, 2020 to JULY 31, 2020 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE wildohio.gov OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE The Division of Wildlife’s mission is to conserve and improve fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for sustainable use and appreciation by all. VISIT US ON THE WEB WILDOHIO.GOV FOR GENERAL INFORMATION 1-800-WILDLIFE (1-800-945-3543) TO REPORT WILDLIFE VIOLATIONS 1-800-POACHER (1-800-762-2437) DIVISION OF WILDLIFE **AVAILABLE 24 HOURS** DISTRICT OFFICES OHIO GAME CHECK OHIOGAMECHECK.COM WILDLIFE DISTRICT ONE 1500 Dublin Road 1-877-TAG-IT-OH Columbus, OH 43215 (1-877-824-4864) (614) 644‑3925 WILDLIFE DISTRICT TWO HIP CERTIFICATION 952 Lima Avenue 1-877-HIP-OHIO Findlay, OH 45840 (1-877-447-6446) (419) 424‑5000 WILDLIFE DISTRICT THREE FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA 912 Portage Lakes Drive Akron, OH 44319 Like us on Facebook (330) 644‑2293 facebook.com/ohiodivisionofwildlife Follow us on Twitter WILDLIFE DISTRICT FOUR twitter.com/OhioDivWildlife 360 E. State Street Athens, OH 45701 (740) 589‑9930 WILDLIFE DISTRICT FIVE 1076 Old Springfield Pike Xenia, OH 45385 (937) 372‑9261 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY The Ohio Division of Wildlife offers equal opportunity regardless GOVERNOR, STATE OF OHIO of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex (in education programs). If you believe you have been discriminated against in MIKE DeWINE any program, activity or facility, you should contact: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Diversity & Civil Rights Programs-External Programs, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT 4040 N.
    [Show full text]
  • Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio Under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002 March 25, 2002 prepared by Division of Surface Water Division of Surface Water, 122 South Front St., PO Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 644-2001 Introduction Federal Water Quality Standard (WQS) program regulations require that States adopt and use an antidegradation policy. The policy has two distinct purposes. First, an antidegradation policy must provide a systematic and reasoned decision making process to evaluate the need to lower water quality. Regulated activities should not lower water quality unless the need to do so is demonstrated based on technical, social and economic criteria. The second purpose of an antidegradation policy is to ensure that the State’s highest quality streams, rivers and lakes are preserved. This document deals with the latter aspect of the antidegradation policy. Section 6111.12(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code specifically requires that the Ohio EPA establish provisions “ensuring that waters of exceptional recreational and ecological value are maintained as high quality resources for future generations.” Table 1 explains the proposed classification system to accomplish this directive. The shaded categories denote the special higher resource quality categories. The proposed rule contains 157 stream segments classified as either State Resource Waters (SRW) or Superior High Quality Waters (SHQW). The approximate mileage in each classification is shown in Table 1. The total mileage in both classifications represents less than four percent of Ohio’s streams. Refer to “Methods and Documentation Used to Propose State Resource Water and Superior High Quality Water Classifications for Ohio’s Water Quality Standards” (Ohio EPA, 2002) for further information about the process used to develop the list of streams.
    [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]
  • DEQ RRD BULLETIN Tittabawassee/Saginaw River
    MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY John Engler, Governor • Russell J. Harding, Director INTERNET: www.michigan.gov/deq DEQ ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE DIVISION INFORMATION BULLETIN TITTABAWASSEE/SAGINAW RIVER FLOOD PLAIN Environmental Assessment Initiative Midland, Saginaw counties February 2002 INTRODUCTION PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Flood Plain Soil This is the first in a series of bulletins to inform area communities about progress, future plans, meeting Historical flow data indicates that during the spring dates, and other activities regarding the and fall months it is common for the flow of water Tittabawassee/Saginaw River Flood Plain Dioxin within the Tittabawassee River to increase to a Environmental Assessment Initiative. What follows level that causes the river to expand onto its flood is an overview of the Department of Environmental plain. During these high flow periods it is possible Quality (DEQ) efforts to identify flood plain areas that sediments, and dioxins that have come to be where dioxin and dioxin-related compounds located in the sediments, are transported from the (hereinafter referred to collectively as “dioxin”) river bottom, or other unidentified source areas, could pose public health or environmental concern. and deposited onto the flood plain. Please refer to the accompanying document entitled “Dioxins Fact Sheet” for a more detailed From December 2000 through July 2001, DEQ account of public health and environmental issues Environmental Response Division (ERD) staff associated with dioxin compounds. A map collected soil samples from the Tittabawassee identifying the environmental assessment area is River flood plain at three locations: 1) at property also included. near the headwaters of the Saginaw River, 2) at property located near the end of Arthur Street in As always, DEQ staff is available to help clarify Saginaw Township, and 3) along the northern issues or address concerns you may have on any perimeter of the Shiawassee National Wildlife aspect of the environmental assessment initiative.
    [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]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alpena FWCO - Detroit River Substation Fisheries Evaluation of the Frankenmuth Rock Ramp in Frankenmuth, MI Final Report - October 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alpena FWCO – Detroit River Substation 9311 Groh Road Grosse Ile, MI 48138 Paige Wigren, Justin Chiotti, Joe Leonardi, and James Boase Suggested Citation: Wigren, P.L., J.A. Chiotti, J.M. Leonardi, and J.C. Boase. 2019. Alpena FWCO – Detroit River Substation Fisheries Evaluation of the Frankenmuth Rock Ramp in Frankenmuth, MI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alpena Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office – Waterford Substation, Waterford, MI, 22 pp. On the cover: Staff from the Alpena Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office – Detroit River Substation holding the only northern pike that was recaptured upstream of the rock ramp; a tagged walleye; a small flathead catfish; a net full of tagged fish ready to be released downstream; four tagged white suckers recaptured upstream and boat crew conducting an electrofishing transect. 3 Summary Since the construction of the rock ramp, 17 fish species not previously detected upstream have been captured. These species include eight freshwater drum, eleven walleye, two gizzard shad, eight flathead catfish and two round goby. Over the past three years 2,604 fish have been tagged downstream of the rock ramp. Twenty-nine of these fish were recaptured upstream during boat electrofishing assessments or by anglers. Based on the mean monthly discharge of the Cass River during April and May, the data suggests that white and redhorse suckers can move past the rock ramp during normal discharge years.
    [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]
  • Cuyahoga River RAP State of the River Report
    CUYAHOGA RIVER REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT & PROCEEDINGSPROCEEDINGS OFOF THETHE OCTOCTOBEROBER 25,25, 20012001 SYMPOSIUMSYMPOSIUM JANUARY 2002 Sponsored by: The Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Prepared by Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan 1299 Superior Ave, Cleveland Ohio 44114 (216) 241-2414 FAX (216) 621-3024 This report was funded by grants from the George Gund Foundation, the Cleveland Foundation, the GAR Foundation, the Ohio EPEPAA andand thethe USUS ForestForest ServiceService DivisionDivision ofof StateState andand PrivatePrivate ForestryForestry NortheasternNortheastern Area,Area, andand technicaltechnical supportsupport from the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Additional reproduction of this report was funded with support from the US Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office CUYAHOGA RIVER REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE OCTOBER 25, 2001 SYMPOSIUM JANUARY 2002 Prepared by Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan 1299 Superior Ave, Cleveland Ohio 44114 (216) 241-2414 FAX (216) 621-3024 This report was funded by grants from the George Gund Foundation, the Cleveland Foundation, the GAR Foundation, the Ohio EPA and the US Forest Service Division of State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, and technical support from the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Acknowledgements Preparation of this document
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Executive Summary
    1. Executive Summary “The significant problems we The Looking Glass River Watershed is one of three watersheds that were face cannot be solved at the same delineated as a result of the formation of the Greater Lansing Regional level of thinking we were at Committee on Phase II Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention (GLRC) on when they were created.” May 21, 2004. The GLRC is comprised of 22 political agencies (i.e. - Albert Einstein communities, drain commissioner’s offices, and road commission) that each chose to fulfill the requirements of the Michigan Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Storm Water Permit. The Looking Glass River Watershed contains 14 of the 22 political agencies. Working together as the Looking Glass River Watershed Committee, the permittees have developed this Watershed Management Plan (WMP) to fulfill the permit requirements. The Looking Glass River Watershed includes both rural and urban areas. The urban areas, which encompass approximately 11% of the watershed, Lower Grand include a portion of the Lansing metropolitan area (the Cities of Lansing, River Looking Glass River Watershed Management East Lansing, and Lansing Township), Meridian Township, and the City of Planning Area DeWitt. The City of DeWitt and Bath and DeWitt Townships are experiencing development but still have rural (agricultural and forest) areas that can be protected. Watertown, Woodhull, Victor, Olive and Riley Upper Grand Townships are all in the watershed and all have rural areas with significant River
    [Show full text]