Table 5.1.1 Designated Use Prioritization
|
Designated Use |
Priority Ranking for Protection |
|
Agriculture |
7 |
|
Industrial water
supply |
8 |
|
Public water
supply at the point of intake |
1 |
|
Navigation |
6 |
|
Warm/cold water
fishery |
4 |
|
Other indigenous
aquatic life and wildlife |
5 |
|
Partial body
contact recreation |
3 |
|
Total body
contact recreation between May 1 and October 31 |
2 |
5.2 Prioritization
of Pollutants for Each Designated Use
Since each pollutant has different effects on the
threatened designated uses it was important for LCWC to prioritize the
pollutants for the threatened uses. This enables water quality managers to see
the relationship between pollutants and multiple threatened uses. Prioritizing pollutants for each threatened
designated use provided insight into the prevalence of certain pollutants
impacting several designated uses. This
also provided the logical course for general prioritizations, and later source
and cause prioritizations.
Similarities exist between the pollutants affecting our
water supply, partial body contact, and full body contact. These designated
uses describe our everyday use of water at home and in our everyday lives. Due
to LMAS Health Department reports of widespread bacteria contamination in wells
across the watershed and the ratio of new


Navigation has been difficult in
Picture
(left): Dock in Cedarville Bay (September 29, 2003).
The result is algal blooms and increasing aquatic plant growth. Several sources to these pollutants have been verified through visual observations and analysis of local land use practices adjacent the bay.

Picture (left):
Algal bloom near Township dock in Cedarville (

Sediment also plays a part in hindering navigation in
this heavy-use bay. The last decade has seen an island appear in the bay
adjacent to the mouth of Pearson Creek, which enters into the bay at
Picture (left): The island is the green area in the background - behind the dock (July 10, 2004).

Several upstream road crossings are failing with eroding
embankments eventually adding sediment to
Pearson Creek
and
|
Threatened
Designated Uses |
Pollutants |
Priority
Ranking |
Public
water supply at the point of intake
|
Pathogens Toxins Nutrients |
1 2 3 |
Total
body contact recreation
(May
1 / Oct 31)
|
Pathogens Toxins Nutrients |
1 2 3 |
Partial
body contact recreation
|
Pathogens Toxins Nutrients |
1 2 3 |
Warm/cold
water fishery
|
Nutrients Sediments Hydro
Flow Changes Invasive
Species Habitat
degradation/loss Toxins |
5 4 3 6 1 2 |
Other
indigenous aquatic life and wildlife
|
Nutrients Sediments Hydro
Flow Changes Invasive
Species Habitat
degradation/loss Toxins |
5 4 3 6 1 2 |
Navigation
|
Nutrients Sediment |
1 2 |
According to Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Biologist, Dave Fielder, several factors may be considered for the decreasing Les Cheneaux Area creel counts documented by MDNR creel clerks since 1985. Increasing Cormorant predations and both sport and commercial fishing have been suggested as reasons, and are increasing concerns among local fishermen, but further attention to these activities will be needed to affirm their roles in fishery populations and diversity. Verification of these sources will take a much larger regional management approach than the Watershed Project Partners can take, but for which the Watershed Project Partners will be in full support. On the local level, several pollutants and conditions, according to Fielder, may hinder fishery recovery, and should be managed accordingly.
According to Project partners, maintaining
sufficient quality aquatic habitat is the highest priority concept for
maintaining aquatic biota in the Les Cheneaux Area.
Increasing development and activity is threatening existing habitat, and the
watershed project will focus much time and effort in protecting that which
remains and improving that which is degraded.
High priority has to be placed on toxins such as
oils, gases, and cleaners because of their potential to harm aquatic and human
life. Sources in the watershed tend to
be everywhere from parking lots to leaking boat motors to machinery service
stations. Rain and snowmelt transport
the toxins into water bodies, where they remain to affect both human and
aquatic organisms. ubiquitous everywhere enter Les Cheneaux
Water bodies from a myriad of different routes, including storm drains,
ditches, parking lots, and through boat motors.
Nutrients also come from many different sources.
However they may affect aquatic organisms in the Les Cheneaux
Watershed to a lesser degree.
Hyrdrological flow changes and sediment
exist with one causing the other in the watershed. LCWP inventories have
delineated several road/stream crossings that are insufficient for the amount
of discharge that typically runs through them. Water gets dammed during spring
and fall and other large rain events.
That water overcomes banks, strips the topsoil off and transports it downstream.
Sedimentation is also a problem on lakefront properties where development
activity scours the soil and rains wash the soil into littoral areas where
aquatic invertebrates and small fish thrive.
The lowest priority pollutant determined by project
partners to affect aquatic organisms is invasive species (also known as exotic
and non-native species). Low priority is
only given in this case because of the difficulty in managing invasive species
by the Les Cheneaux Watershed Project. It is true that invasive species have the
greatest potential to affect aquatic organisms in the Great Lakes, including the
All these pollutants are important and should be priorities for maintaining the ecological health of the watershed. Low prioritization only classifies the possible timeline for the Project to address the pollutants. In fact, as funding sources and participation change, prioritizations may change.
The next step in the prioritization process is to
prioritize the sources of pollutants. To
eliminate pollution and conditions that contribute to water quality
degradation, determine the source of that pollution or condition, and the cause
of that source or condition. Address the
causes and one may in fact eliminate several pollution sources and conditions
throughout the watershed. Consequently,
prioritizing the different sources and causes of pollution can help focus
attention on those origins for much of the pollution problems and negative
conditions impacting water quality in the watershed.
The method used to prioritize these sources takes
into account the magnitude of the sources and the ease at which the pollutants
move from the source to the waterbody. Again, an important criteria
is the ability of the project partners to realized success in addressing the
sources of pollution in the watershed.
5.3 Prioritization of Pollutants, Sources
and Causes
In keeping with human health as a criteria for prioritizing aquatic use, so goes prioritizing the pollutants affecting those uses. The highest priority pollutants, according to local and regional stakeholders are pathogens, nutrients, and toxins due to their potential affect on human health and the ease at which they can contaminate water used for so many important designated uses.
|
Pollutant/Condition |
Known
or Suspected Source |
Known
or suspected cause |
|
Pathogens |
Human
waste from failing on-site septic systems |
·
Poor land use planning ·
Poor system design ·
Lack of awareness/maintenance |
|
Municipal
wastewater discharge |
·
Poor land use planning ·
Poor system design |
|
|
Animal
waste |
·
Animal habitat encroachment ·
Artificial feeding ·
Lack of awareness to wildlife management |
|
|
Stormwater |
·
Few stormwater control structures ·
Karst topography |
|
|
Toxins (salts, oils, gases, hazardous wastes) |
Aquatic
recreation/use machinery & service areas (i.e. boats, snowmobiles, etc) |
·
Leaking motors ·
Fuel transfer ·
Fuel waste through exhaust ·
Fuel spills |
|
Roads,
parking lots, driveways, ditches, stormdrains |
·
No stormwater management program ·
Impervious surfaces directly connected to storm sewers ·
Ditches drain directly into creek/lake ·
Lack of homeowner awareness of motorized machinery pollutants |
|
|
Use
of hazardous waste (HW)
(paint, solvents, etc.) |
·
Lack of awareness of HW management ·
Lack of HW receptacle |
|
|
Nutrients
(phosphate, nitrate) |
Wastes
from failing on-site septic systems |
·
Poor land use planning ·
Poor system design ·
Lack of awareness/maintenance |
|
Municipal
wastwater discharge |
·
Poor land use planning ·
Poor system design |
|
|
Animal
Waste |
·
Animal habitat encroachment ·
Artificial feeding ·
Lack of awareness to wildlife management |
|
|
Stormwater |
·
No stormwater management ·
Karst topography |
|
|
Loss/degradation
of habitat |
Development |
·
Lack of appropriate land use planning/regulation ·
Lack of environmental awareness/stewardship ethic ·
Lack of compliance with protective controls |
|
Erosion/sedimentation |
·
Altered hydrology from impoundments, and lack of stormwater
management ·
Lack of riparian buffer ·
Destructive construction practices ·
Lack of awareness of erosion causes and solutions |
|
|
Hydrology
alterations |
·
Failing road/stream crossings and other impoundments (beaver dams,
in-stream obstructions) ·
Lack of stormwater program, including i/e, regulations |
|
|
Toxin
contamination |
·
Lack of awareness to toxin threats and management ·
Lack of hazardous waste management program/facility |
|
|
High
nutrient loading (high concentrations) |
·
Municipal wastewater discharge ·
Stormwater |
|
|
Invasive
Species |
·
Lack of awareness/information/education about source, spread, and
management of invasive species population ·
Lack of invasive species program, management plan, participation |
|
|
Altered
hydrology |
Impoundments
|
·
Road/stream crossings ·
Habitat encroachment |
|
Increased
stormwater/spring/fall flows |
·
Increase in impervious, filled areas ·
Lack of stormwater management program ·
Impoundments creating flashy flows |
|
|
Groundwater
fluctuations |
·
Water cycle fluctuations ·
Groundwater use fluctuations ·
Imperviousness, filled recharge areas |
|